HUGE NEWS in ITALY today http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/rubriche/speciale-italygate-11-ecco-tutte-le-contraddizioni-nelle-verita-ufficiali-su-mifsud/ John Durham expended his investigation based on a new piece of evidence uncovered in Rome.
Today the President of the Conte Council will be heard by Copasir (Parliamentary Committee for the Security of the Republic) on the meetings of August 15 and September 27 between the heads of the Italian secret services and the men of Trump, the Attorney General Barr and the prosecutor Durham , who are investigating the origins of Russiagate / Spygate and the alleged involvement of some allied countries, including ours.
The question, to which we will try to give an answer tomorrow, is whether the Copasir will show the will to turn the spotlight on the events that took place in Rome starting from March 2016 not only at Link Campus University , on the figure of Professor Joseph Mifsud – that he remained hidden, perhaps still in Rome, while the special prosecutor Mueller’s investigation was underway – and in the Occhionero case, or if he will simply contest his conduct in authorizing the “unusual” meetings of our services to Prime Minister Conte with the Americans.
In recent days we have read in the Italian press many reconstructions aimed at minimizing the role of Mifsud and in any case to distance his figure from Western academic, political and intelligence circles, particularly Italians. It goes from the founder of Link , the former interior minister Vincenzo Scotti, who interviewed by La Stampa suggests “asking the English” of Mifsud, to la Repubblica , which dedicated two pages to the Maltese professor to say, in essence, that this is a braggart, or rather a “cazzaro” , passing through Il Foglio, which after having reported the statements of the lawyer Roh on the alleged role of our services in losing track since November 2017, today claims that “the Mifsud link is with Russia” .
All this while from overseas, on the contrary, confirmations arrive that the investigations of the prosecutor Durham are concentrating on this very track, which leads to Italy, the United Kingdom and Australia. In particular on the basis of “new evidence gathered during his recent visit to Rome together with the Barr Barr”, sources at Fox News report , his investigation has been expanded. The prosecutor would have found “something significant” and would be ready to question former CIA directors Brennan and the National Intelligence Clapper. But in particular, the fact that he got two BlackBerry phones (with English Sim card) “data in use at Mifsud”, of which now the lawyer of former general Flynn, Sidney Powell, asks for the data, it means that Durham is trying to establish the real role of the mysterious Maltese professor.
Those who have followed our Special from the beginning know that our hypothesis is that Mifsud was not actually an agent or asset of the Russians, but that he lent himself to an operation aimed at fabricating an element of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, or at least to tempt the latter. A hypothesis that is based not only on the links, working relationships and acquaintances of Mifsud – although in reality much more extensive and in-depth those with Western environments – but on the questions left unanswered, even after the investigation and the report by the special prosecutor Mueller , and on the contradictions emerged in the behavior of the FBI and the DOJ towards him.
Interlocution between Mifsud and George Papadopoulos, the former Trump Campaign advisor to whom he reported the “dirt” materialon Hillary Clinton (thousands of her emails) owned by the Russians, she is considered so serious and worrying by the FBI to induce her, on 31 July 2016, to open the counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Not only that: in the following months, the “news” that Mifsud had reported to Papadopoulos of Clinton’s emails to the Russians is considered by the FBI to be so credible 1) to base the request for a FISA mandate to intercept a Trump Campaign collaborator, Carter Page, and subsequent surveillance extensions; 2) send an undercover agent to London, together with Professor Halper, to check what Papadopoulos knew and what he intended to do with that information; 3) torment the same Papadopoulos incriminating him for lying about his encounters with Mifsud and thus hampering the FBI’s investigation. All this, we ask ourselves, in at least six months of investigations, while the FBI would have been able to ascertain just a few days, as it did.the Republic , which Mifsud is a well-known boaster, a “cazzaro” ?
Considered so worrying and credible as to contribute to the unheard-of decision to “spy on” a presidential candidate’s campaign, the Mifsud-Papadopoulos case cannot be dismissed as special prosecutor Mueller did in his report and in his Congressional hearing, without answering to the fundamental question: who is Mifsud and on behalf of those who acted when he came into contact in a way that was anything but casual with Papadopoulos, who had just joined the Trump Campaign?
And here the contradictions open up. His investigation continued for over two years, Mueller indicted many people, including Papadopoulos himself, even for just lying to the FBI. Yet, despite Mifsud’s lying to the agency, the prosecutor never charged him. Why? One question, as we have already reported , mail directly to Mueller during his hearing in Congress by Republican Jim Jordan: “Why did not you charge for Joseph Mifsud lying to the FBI?” “I can not get into it” , I can’t answer that, it was the prosecutor’s reply. “I’m struggling to understand why you didn’t indicate Joseph Mifsud”, urged another Republican deputy, Devin Nunes, obtaining this reply from Mueller: “You cannot get classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it and I have said to you”. Mr Mifsud ” .
In his report, Mueller does not explicitly state that “the professor” was a Russian agent, as claimed by former FBI director James Comey at the Washington Post, but alludes to it, writing that Papadopoulos was right to believe it and reporting his contacts with figures close to the Kremlin and Russian espionage, though without specifying its nature and movements. In the months when he met and talked with Papadopoulos, the professor managed to put him in touch only with the director of a think tank linked to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Ivan Timofeev, and with a woman whom Papadopoulos claims he was introduced to him as his nephew Putin but maybe he wasn’t even Russian. However, Mueller does not cite Mifsud’s much closer and more intense relations with Western academic, diplomatic, political and intelligence circles.
We are talking about NATO military personnel, former American and British intelligence officials, diplomats, ministers and Western politicians, the former vice president of the European Parliament, Pittella, who called him a “dear friend”. As director of the London Academy of Diplomacy , Mifsud worked with the British Foreign Office. He was among the executives of the London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP), where Papadopoulos worked for a short time before joining the Trump Campaign. “It would not have taken long for Peter Strzok (the FBI agent who opened the investigation, ed) to draw a profile on LCILP and its directors,” explained British analyst Chris Blackburn to the Washington Times. “He was focused on counterterrorism. His directors have previously worked closely with the FBI and claim on their site to have a US State Department contract to teach intelligence to law enforcement officials and Libyan intelligence ”.
As is known, Mifsud also played an important role at Link Campus University , where, also here, intelligence courses and conferences on security are held with CIA, FBI, MI6 officials and Italian services. A photograph of October 2012 shows him with officers of the Italian army on the occasion of a training program on the international security for armed forces and law enforcement of our country, organized by Link Campus and London Academy of Diplomacy . Together with him, Claire Smith, a long-time diplomat, then a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the United Kingdom, a committee that oversees all of Her Majesty’s intelligence agencies and responds directly to the prime minister, as well as a member of the Cabinet Office Security Vetting Appeals Panel .
In short, it is clear that if Mifsud worked for the Russians, an incredible number of Western diplomatic, political and security personalities and institutions with which he came into contact could have been seriously compromised, a gigantic flaw in US security and government allies. And yet, as we shall see, this hypothesis has never raised alarm. The issue was raised last May , after the conclusion of the Mueller report, by the former president of the House Intelligence Commission, the Republican Nunes, in a letter addressed, among others, to the Secretary of State Pompey and the director of the FBI Wray, in which he asks for information on the Maltese professor:
“If Mifsud has extensive and suspicious contacts among Russian officials as illustrated in the special prosecutor’s report, then an incredibly large number of Western institutions and individuals may have been compromised by him, including our State Department. Alternatively, if Mifsud is not actually a counterintelligence threat, then it would raise doubts about his and his activities that made him the special prosecutor and questions about the veracity of his statements and statements. ”
“Is there a reason why Mueller just can’t, after 40 million dollars, tell us who Mifsud is and stops a step from calling him a Russian agent?”, Nunes asked in an interview already reported on the Atlantic in last July. “Somehow, this Mifsud, if he were really a Russian agent, as James Comey recently said, my God … you would have the compromised FBI, the compromised State Department, the compromised Congress. And the list goes on and on the damage that Mifsud would have done ”.
But no, another contradiction: Mifsud has never been treated as such a potential threat, neither by the FBI nor by other Western security services.
For almost all of 2017, even during the first months of the Mueller investigation, therefore, and even after being questioned by the FBI, the professor continued to maintain his contacts with academics, diplomats, politicians and Western intelligence figures, granted interviews and participated in conferences, without feeling in any way hunted or in danger. It is precisely by taking advantage of his participation in one of these conferences, in Washington, six months after the opening of the investigation, that the FBI decides to question him about his meetings with Papadopoulos. The occasion is an event called “Strategic Dialogue” in the heart of American power, Capitol Hill, held in February 2017 and hosted by Global Ties US , a non-profit organization supported by the State Department. In those days of February, the FBI questioned Mifsud, who in an interview with La Repubblica published on November 1, 2017, before losing track of it, recalled this: “Anyway, I’ve already talked to the FBI, when the Department of State invited me to a congress on Capitol Hill ”.
Therefore, the suspected Russian agent who plotted with the Trump Campaign to condition the elections is invited to speak at a conference on Capitol Hill, questioned by the FBI about his meetings with Papadopoulos and left to leave. Will they soon become aware of their naivety in Washington? No, because a few weeks later, on May 23, 2017, ten months after the opening of the counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign based on those meetings, we find Mifsud at a conference on terrorism hosted by the Saudi government at the King Faisal Center of Riad, as reported by Chris Blackburn. In his own panel, expert Michael Hurley, who led CIA agents in Afghanistan in 2001 and was a consultant to the 9/11 Commission, and Katherine Bauer of the US Treasury Department. But the former US defense secretary Ashton Carter and Richard Barrett, former commander of the international counter-terrorism of the British MI6, also spoke at the conference.
We are almost a year since the opening of the investigation on Russiagate, the FBI questioned Papadopoulos in January and the professor in February, yet Mifsud still freely interacts with senior officials, big men of Western governments. On 19 October, a few days before losing track, he was even photographed with then British foreign minister Boris Johnson at a conservative party event.
In short, as soon as surveillance on the Trump Campaign started, and still in the midst of the Russiagate hysteria, the FBI and US authorities do not behave at all as if Mifsud were a Russian agent, a potential threat that could have compromised an incredible number of personalities Western policies and security. Yet, still in the spring of this year, in his report Mueller suggests that it is, however, taking care not to state it explicitly.
No one has ever looked for him after his death in November 2017. Not even an Italian prosecutor’s office has opened a dossier as far as it appears, considering that on him hangs a sentence in absentia of the Court of Accounts of Palermo for a sum of 49 thousand euros obtained as unjustified compensation from the University Consortium of the Province of Agrigento, of which Mifsud was president for some years. “Unknown residence”, the judges wrote.
The figure of Mifsud is therefore central in Spygate, because if he were a Western intelligence asset, then this would prove that Papadopoulos was lured and framed as early as the spring of 2016, long before the formal investigation Crossfire Hurricane , and would increase suspected that the Obama administration opened the Trump Campaign investigation based on fabricated evidence. And even if it were simply a boaster, the FBI would not make a great figure to have opened a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a presidential candidate, which would have fed Russiagate for years.
Some answers could be found in Rome, since it is at the Link Campus that Mifsud and Papadopoulos met for the first time, and it is still in Rome that the professor was seen for the last time before disappearing. As long as Copasir, the political and judicial authorities and the Italian press want to see clearly …
This is explosive stuff and this coming direct from Italy. Ask yourself why isn’t this all over mainstream media?
Thank you, O for your submittal, keep the information flowing.